punditarians
October 17, 2002
There's a few things we've been too polite to point out to you, but it's time to set a few things straight.
I would like you to know that idiotarian is not a word. Yes, I recognize that English is a living, evolving language, where additions are made by usage and not by mandate, but understand, neither are they made through sheer repetition. Fisk is not a transitive verb; It's a surname. It's no longer amusing to watch you make yourself sound silly.
Those of us in the majority, who are of all political stripes, correctly see stridency and cliquish, back-slapping, jargon-laden repetitious rantings as neither productive nor useful. That you have tacked "-pundit" onto an adjective and then suffixed .blogspot.com on the end of it does not suddenly mean that anyone with any decision making power about international politics suddenly gives a shit about your opinion.
We do not speak of "Coultering punditarians". Even if one lonesome loyalist ink-stained wretch felt it necessary to pander to a tiny but loud constituency be repeating our made-up words in print, we'd still not stoop to inaccuracy, childishness, or unquestioning loyalty to a doctrine in the course of our discussion of geopolitics.
It's been asked why certain positions or ideas aren't represented online, or at least aren't represented well. That's similar to asking why no one is taking the time to engage the folks staffing the Lyndon Larouche table on your local college campus: It's time-consuming, annoying, and gets in the way of doing productive things. It's also not a luxury that's afforded to anyone in an actual position of control over the situation.
We could point out the inadequacies of various positions shouted from all over the web. That the war on terror has apparently not been successful in securing our nation's capital. That winning a war requires having goals for that war, preferably achievable ones. That truly engaging an enemy requires defining who the members of that enemy group. If our greatest collective danger is the overlap of the sets of Islamists and Arabs, which is possible, then why would we want to diffuse our efficacy by targeting for derision and detention those who are only members of one set? Of neither?
Protocol dictates that to pose this argument, one most go into the belly of the beast. Their argument is that, when faced with an evil, we must respond with all available means, with no reservation, in attacking those who support that evil. I submit that undifferentiated, xenophobic dismissals of entire cultures, entire peoples, is an evil prejudice. A prejudice that's not just morally wrong, but dangerous because it encourages those who might side with us against the extremists in their culture to instead see us as enemies. Therefore I am morally obligated to engage places where such actions take place, hold the leaders of those places responsible for these evil actions, and not be concerned with the slights that other who are around those evildoers might feel. It's their fault for choosing to be of the same ilk as those poisonous few.
But what happens when faced with such engagement? With indisputable evidence of the evil in their midst? We get protestations that the members of the community shouldn't all be lumped together with the small percentage of genuinely wrong people in their midst. They result to creating conspiracy theories against those of us in the right. They try to drown out the few voices of protest that spring up. Their leaders claim that "opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect" their own, refusing to take responsibility for the environment they created and encourage.
That's not all. They hold tightly onto their suspicions of their enemies, even in face of contradictory facts. They point out that, though some might say things that are evil or wrong, they can understand where the rage comes from. According to doctrine, this means they're all apologists for evil. They should be lumped in with their leaders who fail to rein them in, and written off for good. And we can fairly ignore the fact that there are people trying to reform because they're too diplomatic and don't issue blanket condemnations of everyone in their group.
But of course, I'm a fool. Trying to engage people in dialogue, perhaps start a useful conversation with a few of them, it could never lead to progress. It could never lead to voices of temperance within an extremist community. Right?
There's some who'd dismiss the argument, that these people aren't saying that evil is wrong because it's evil, but that evil is wrong because it might make them look bad. I don't buy it. I think people are making progress. Now if we can just drop the extremism that pushes even legitimate points out of the realm of coherent discussion, we'll be getting somewhere.
I realize, of course, that I'm setting myself up to be attacked. Some people just don't understand how foolish they look going after a self-avowed straw man. Heh.
Update: Yup, comments are gone. I'm tired of the idiocy, from both sides. I don't doubt that I'll continue getting hate mail from people who probably share the same political goals as me. Thanks for helping the cause by making important ideas look like the ranting of fools.
2:30 AM
5 TrackBacks
Aaron linked to this incredibly bad ass evaluation of the warblogger clusterfuck so perfectly composed that I almost feel sorry Read More
So I read Anil Dash's little jab at LGF (and warbloggers in general) and found it suffering from an excess of pomposity and righteousness that has been afflicting the politicobloggers lately. It's not the "in your face" variety of rant, rather the whol... Read More
There's a good bit of information that I think my readers should know. To those who come here for the Read More
There's been an awful lot of talk about power laws and weblogs recently, complete with charts and graphs, and, if Read More
yivivcautv Read More
111 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: IE scripting engines
- Next: mac html control suckage
Wow. The people at that site really, really scare me.
Not in that "I'm afraid of you, so I'll soil my pants and run away" scared, but the "aww, you poor thing. so dumb and still able to type and screw your sister at the same time" scared.
OK, so thats a really bad analogy.
Thanks, Anil. That needed to be said.
I loved those first few paragraphs!! I mean, this whole post is well written, but I mean the first few paragraphs were really funny.
You're right about dialogue not being possible.
There's this crazy guy in my area that runs a popular pro-war, pro-racism pundit type web site (though last I checked he wasn't savvy enough to be using a blog yet).
And when I dared open dialogue with him, he ensnared me in some kind of made-up conspiracy he was saying was against him, and I wound up with death threats after being quoted in a local newspaper article as defending Muslim Americans.
Yeah, I'm scared... and yeah, in a piss-my-pants oh-my-god why do I have to share my beautiful planet with such vile hate-filled bigots and are they going to kill me for being nice & peaceful -- kind of way.
heh.
I'm not ashamed to admit that. I'm peaceful, and I'm frightened by hateful warmongers. They kill people - innocent, guilty, they care not.
But then I remember there has always been good & evil in the world, and I must accept reality.
Does a snake know he's a snake? He crawls on the ground & thinks he's a king. He doesn't know he looks like a worm & his poison is repellent.
Nice rant, Anil, and timely as well.
I was just reading a prominent warblogger's explanation that he doesn't research his conclusions; in fact, argues to them, when I began to think that no one with a blog can write about this "war" without being xenophobic or flirting with rationalized genocide.
I'm glad I was wrong. Thanks.
Traffic slow again, Anil?
Ahh it's good to see that the other side has responded with an intense analysis of Anil's post :-/
Wow. Thank you for saying that. And saying it so well.
Here you go Kelley, and by the way, Anil knows what I'm referring to. It's our "inside joke".
Exposing Anil for the two-faced, sanctimonious, hypocrite that he is.
Anil has nothing to say, ever, about any topic. The only time he ever bothers commenting is to tell others what "racists" they are (his favorite word), while failing to see what a racist he is.
Anil talks about "dialogue", yet has proved repeatedly that he couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. Until he calms down and learns how to debate, he will be treated as a nasty troll. He has a strange fixation with Charles and LGF. He drops in from time to time, screaming at one poster or another, and promptly leaves, without actually having contributed to the topic being discussed. How immature. Charles does not make up the stories that he posts on LGF, he merely exposes the ugly truth. But Anil refuses to see that. Instead he screams "racist", occasionally calls someone a pig, and runs away. He's far braver on his own site. Not exactly endearing behavior, wouldn't you agree? It's the double-standards that Anil has that galls me. In fact, it nauseates me. I don't like dishonest people, including those that are dishonest with themselves.
What I'd really like to know is if Anil would carry on like this if the terrorists were white? I suspect he'd being as happy as a clam, and supporting profiling wholeheartedly. Anil cares less about the security of the citizens of this country than he does about hurting the feelings of the terrorists.
And Anil, let me remind you that you are the one who started it all. You are the one that attacked Charles and the people that post on LGF. You are the one who posted that nasty screed on your own site. What did you expect the response to be? And, of coure, you will never take responsibility for what you started, but will rather talk about how you are "attacked". Like all bullies, you're quick to give it out, but cry like a girl when you get it back.
Your latest nasty posting about LGF illustrates exactly what I mean about you. Nothing of substance, just your usual smug, judgemental, finger-pointing venom. Never a word from you about anything of consequence. Never.
I anticipate your usual hysterical response.
Yes, I recognize that English is a living, evolving language
Clearly not.
What I'd really like to know is if Anil would carry on like this if the terrorists were white? I suspect he'd being as happy as a clam, and supporting profiling wholeheartedly. Anil cares less about the security of the citizens of this country than he does about hurting the feelings of the terrorists.
Any evidence to support those suspicions?
Anil Dash-- tragically hip.
zulubaby: Anil has nothing to say, ever, about any topic. The only time he ever bothers commenting is to tell others what "racists" they are (his favorite word), while failing to see what a racist he is.
(@ October 17, 2002 11:46 PM)
I have been reading Anil's blog for almost three years now, and I can say that in all that time he has had many things to say about a wide variety of issues, both serious and silly, and have rarely, if ever, called someone "racist" just for kicks. He is a keen and fair observer and writes about what he sees. I don't think he inundates himself with race/ethnocentric issues and concerns himself with such things in unhealthy frequencies. He is not racist.
tamim:
Please understand that I have not known Anil for three years, and my introduction to him was through his malicious attack on Charles and LGF. Charles happens to be someone that I respect and admire. While there are posters on LGF who froth at the mouth, that does not go for everyone there. It irks me that the only time Anil posts at LGF is when he is berating someone for being a "racist". He does not exactly endear himself to others by screaming insults at them. You'll notice that out of thousands and thousands of comments on LGF, he will pull out the few that may be deemed offensive. He is blind to all the comments but those few. He doesn't stick around and debate in a reasonable manner, but rather drops his insults and leaves. How is anyone supposed to take him seriously then? There are very heated debates on LGF. Anil doesn't debate. He just accuses and point fingers and judges. And while you may not think he's a racist, there are several people who he accuses of racism that I disagree with him about. This world is far from perfect, and racism exists. Insisting that an entire group of people are racist based on a few comments is exactly what racism is. And that's why I say that Anil is a hypocrite. It is also not his place to instruct Charles on how to run his site. If he doesn't like it, he needn't visit. What Charles does on his own site is not Anil's business. And if you want to know what a real hateful, bigoted, xenophobic forum looks like, I urge you to visit www.clearguidance.com. You may know a different Anil than I do. The Anil I know does not seem to be a very nice person at all.
Mr. Dash, sir, you rock. thanks for putting this out there. i know it wasn't easy.
"That you have tacked "-pundit" onto an adjective and then suffixed .blogspot.com on the end of it does not suddenly mean that anyone with any decision making power about international politics suddenly gives a shit about your opinion."
Here, here. Now, remember the old adage, "Please God, make my words today sweet and tender, for tomorrow I may have to eat them."
Because if no one with decision making power is listening to them, why would they be listening to you? In fact isn't the whole point of your post that the people in power are not listening to you?
In the future, think - then speak, not the other way 'round.
Zulubabby: I think you're employing genetic fallacy in your argument, no?
Stumbled onto this lovely rant via Blogdex.
Zulubaby sez:
"Insisting that an entire group of people are racist based on a few comments is exactly what racism is."
No, that's not what racism is.
Racism takes many forms. In my country (the U.S.) it took the form of viciously dehumanizing chattel slavery and Jim Crow, and their enduring, pervasive legacy of lack of access to jobs, capital, educational opportunity, etc. In my country we can't glibly dismiss racism as vague name-calling -- it is our original sin, a congenital defect that continues to taint our nation's culture, religion, politics, economy and environment.
littlegreenfootballs. i never understood why it's so awesome. just because someone writes political opinions on a weblog with a nifty design, we all need to comment on it to popularize drivel we don't agree with.
while we're at it lets go read philosophical opinions at www.ourcross.org, now there's a bunch of retards if i ever saw em!
Hate to be pedantic, but since English was mentioned, it should be noted that periods and commas always go inside quote marks, no matter what is being quoted. So for example, if I were to say, "so for example," the comma gets stuck inside the quotes. Even if I were to end this little bit of nitpicking with a title of a song, the final period would go in the quotes, too. "Rock On."
Actually, that's just the way it is done in American English. The British put the comma or period before or after the quote, depending on the context.
Great piece, Anil.
Thank you Mike D, for clarifying that :-)
"Anil you idiot. The only thing you can speak about with any authority is bendy straws."
-zulubaby
"What's unsettling to me is that anyone would defend Anil, o Anil, he of Distorted Perceptions of Self, o Anil, the Holier-than-Thou-Racist-to-End-All-Racists, o Anil, the Legend In His Own Mind."
-zulubaby
"He's a coward and an idiot. Worse yet is that he's one of those stupid people who think they're smart. He misses the point every time."
-zulubaby
"Anil's not a masochist. He's an idiot. I think Charles should sue him for slander."
-zulubaby
"Screw Anil. I'll give him all the negative attention he wants."
-zulubaby
Zulubaby makes himself sound vengeful in the LGF thread and in his comments here. I have a hard time understanding how he claims Anil will be treated as a nasty troll until he "calms down and learns how to debate" while being such an excited name-caller himself. So Zulubaby, quit being such a dick; attack Anil's arguments, not his reputation.
I think Charles was definitely making an implicit comment on the photo, I think he pretty clearly paints a not-white guy's contempt as a reflection of Islamic culture. Despite the fact that the comments in the thread support this, he did not make any direct statement about the guy. He didn't say, "Hey everybody look at this brown terrorist guy who hates America."
Anil attacked Charles for doing something he didn't literally do, LGF peeps got mad and focused on this, Anil's peeps support Anil in his view that LGF is racist.
What I don�t know is why Anil chose that moment to speak up, and on such a dead horse? Maybe he was being a troll, albeit in a fucked up noble sort of way. Oh well, I got a kick out of it. Good show Anil, certainly the most engaging piece yet.
John W,
What you don't realize is that you are quoting my responses to Anil only. That's not all that's discussed on LGF :-)
As an aside, you might be interested to know that Anil cherry-picked 10 out of 15,000 comments to quote in his silly rant.
That's why I say that he is blind to all comments but the the ones that could be deemed as offensive. 10 out of 15,000 is hardly representative of an entire group.
10 out of 15,000 is hardly representative of an entire group.
I win!
No Anil, you just prove my point about you.
haha, no zulubaby, you really did just hand him the game. point, match- dash.
'Fraid not JonMarkle.
Anil accuses others of what he does himself. That's what I have a problem with. No double-standards please.
I don't expect you to see that, the same way as Anil doesn't see it. He misses the point every time. As do you.
Just curious, zulubaby -- are there other comments from JohnMarkle somewhere to prove that he "misses the point every time," as you claim?
oh, Jason, don't taunt her. she has no evidence i'm a racist, no rebuttal to any of the points I made, and no disagreement that there are virulently prejudiced xenophobes on LGF. Of course she's got no knowledge about Jon. Some people are just sore losers who can't recognize irony when they see it.
No double-standards please.
Yes, well. Now that we're all clear that judgements made on an entire group based on a small subset is bad, as you stated when referring to anil's claim that LGF is racist, perhaps you might want to acknowledge that all of islam should not be judged as evil, against the western world, or hell-bent on descruction based on a small subset of its wackiest followers.
Seeing how you're against double-standards and all.
Jason,
You're right. I didn't mean for it to sound like JohnMarkle always misses anything. Poor sentence structure.
Anil,
Rebuttals to what points? That is exactly what my problem is with you. You never make any points. You accuse, you attack, and then you run away. You don't stick around long enough for anyone to debate you. You're a coward and you know it.
But here's the biggest embarrassment for you. I've never disagreed with you that there are ranters on LGF. They're usually taken care of by the regular posters there. You wouldn't know that, blinded as you are by your desire to be "right", and lash out at the entire group. Now you take issue with all people being lumped together because of the lunatics in their midst, yet you fail to see that you do exactly the same thing.
What are you right about again? Your prejudices? Your bias? Your venom? Your attacks? Hmmm. Those pesky double-standards again. To you, this is only about scoring points and being "right"? I expected nothing less from you. It fits right in with what I know of you.
Your self-righteous pompousness and our hypocrisy will be your downfall one day. Mark my words.
mathowie,
Read what I just posted.
That is what Anil has never realized. And that's why I secretly laugh at him. I agree with him that racism is ugly. I agree with him that all Muslims should not be judged on the evils of the extremists. Now do you understand? Anil made a total fool of himself by quoting 10 comments out of 15,000 to tar an entire group of people with the same brush. How much more biased and judgemental can you get? Anil doesn't realize that he is everything that he hates in others. But then, introspection is not his strong suite.
"our hypocrisy will be your downfall one day. Mark my words."
-zulubaby
mathowie: I can safely say comments that Anil (and I) might deem racist are hardly the minority in the LGF thread (and at LGF in general.)
What you consider racist is your own perogative, but don't discount his views by marking them as a response to a "small subset."
Never in my life have I seen so many people argue red herrings, straw men, and use fallacies so liberally. This is an ad hominum argument if I ever saw one.
The fact is, "idiotarians" is not a word. Even if it's some kind of word that people are trying to make into a word... it's got a really silly connotation. I think it was meant to be humourous, plus, it's not a word people would really take seriously.
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE OR LAUGHABLE TO USE A SILLY WORD IN A SUPPOSEDLY SERIOUS ARGUMENT OR WHEN DISCUSSING SERIOUS ISSUES.
I was under the impression that this post, at least the first part of it, was doing an 'in turn' poking fun at that concept.
But I guess it went over most people's heads.
The fact is... I wish people would make up their minds what they're arguing about.
The fact is... When someone, in an argument about whatever topic, cuts someone else down with a dirty personal style insult, I think it says more about the person doing the insulting than the recipient of the insult. And what it says, depends entirely on the listening bystander's standards of class & taste.
heh.
John W,
That was obviously a typo. You know I meant "your" (Anil's) hypocrisy. (I always stay up too late :-)
Anyway, I can't seem to get any of you to understand my point of view, so I'll leave you to slap each other on the back.
"What you consider racist is your own perogative, but don't discount his views by marking them as a response to a "small subset."
-John W
Exactly my point. Thank you.
MSNBC has picked up this thread.
Charles also put up a thread about this, I've commented more there. Tellingly, he describes his campaign as a "crusade". Subtle, no?
I've read Little Green Footballs for a few hours, after seeing it on Weblog Central. I've also read many other blog sites. I see no difference between Little Green Footballs and many other sites when it comes to having its share of emotionally charged discussions.
Nobody has cornered the market on piety. Bigotry takes many forms, not just with the ideas and people that you disagree with.
There are many events occuring in this world that are disturbing, especially when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists. That is a major theme on the site, and when people discuss such things they are bound to use strong words.
At least the site is unique, and the people say what they mean without pulling punches. The people at that site do not scare me by stating their opinion. How pitiful would that be? Little Green Footballs is a interesting, yet disturbing change of pace from the "ignore it or bribe it" policies of the last decade. That got us nowhere.
It is of course nonsense that "LGF (Little Green Footballs) is a blog which conveys a message of intolerance, hatred (and so forth) towards Muslims?"
Charles simply states the facts about the "religion of peace". How does he do this? He quotes islamists and their defenders as they head down the jihaddy highway of death.
There IS of course hatred and bigotry online - check out sites for young muslims like clearguidance or Soundvision.
They want people like me to die.
They want the world to be ruled by Islam. Charles simply reprints their words. Bigotry? Only to an idiotarian....
Just as Bork has become a commonplace verb in American political discourse, Fisk has become a verb in blogland. The English language is replete with words once proper names.
Similarly, anti-idiotarian is a terrific useful word. Folks from almost everywhere in the political spectrum, are willing to recognize nonsense when they see it, and public point it out. What unifies anti-idiotarians is their insistence on rational discourse, and those argumentation from those segments with a large population of anti-idiotarians have a much healthier and saner sound to it.
Every one lapses into nonsense from time to time, but if we read our vents before we hit the send key we can generally avoid a public record of our forays into incoherence, those who refuse such introspection are fair game for the Anti-idiotarians. LGF readers, in particular, are quite good at shooting down nonsense when it appears on that sites comment pages, and most of the posts Anil complains of have already been quite thoroughly savaged there.
Idiotarianism is a back formation of less general applicability, reserved for positions of total incoherence. Noam Chomsky comes readily to mind.
Why is Anil trying to fight a rearguard prescriptivist battle against such expressive neologisms?
People like Glenn Reynolds, (InstaPundit) have achieved a significant influence beyond the simple blog-o-sphere, showing up on op-ed pages and elsewhere in pre-internet media locations. Sure most of the adjectivePundits inspired by such success stories are sorry wannabes who are rightfully all but ignored. Still, new bloggers with something interesting to say are constantly appearing. My favorite list is ever-growing, though not with a link to _this_ site.
Evidently, Anil has been at this game for three years. Is he trying to protect his squatters' rights. Perhaps he considers himself "old money" and looks down on the nouveau riche.
Yeah. I want people to stop blogging, that's why I've been working for years to build blogging tools, evangelize the medium, and have assisted dozens of people in getting started. Ya caught me, robert! What an idiotarian I am!
What unifies anti-idiotarians is their insistence on rational discourse
How could you possibly have rational discourse when you instantly brand your opponents as "idiotarians?"
Let's imagine you have people in a community that diverge in opinions on something inane like how often a garden is watered. You might call them the two groups the dry growers and the wet willys, and those names are perfectly fine and descriptive. But if the dry growers suddenly started referring to those that agreed with them as non-moronic, as a wet willy, you'd have a tough time both engaging them in rational discourse and taking them seriously.
I see these words used in arguments, and they're intentionally used to polarize discussion and belittle detractors and I can't help but roll my eyes. Rational discourse goes out the window when you make up goofy playground-quality names for your opponents.
This is a sad excuse for criticism. LGF brings to light that there are some very troublesome people among a certain portion of the world's populace, and Anil's primary dispute is that some new words have been coined and taken root amongst a substantial number of bloggers and readers.
(Chloe: if you can write it, pronounce it, and define it, it is a word. Such things must occur before the OED takes notice. All words start out known and used by small numbers.)
This complaint is especially silly when conveyed by means of the Internet, one of the leading sources of new words that have found their way into commong usage and the OED. You don't say 'Coultering punditarians?' Why not? Nobody can stop you, what with free speech and all. At least in nations not ruled by Islamic law. Whether your pet phrase or word is widely adopted is another story. Putting some compelling thought behind it would be a major factor in its favor and one that is currently in absence.
Hiding from the truth is not a solution. Cries of racism are a pathetic bid to avoid the genuine issues. Best leave it to pros like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Anil seems to be worried that people's concern about a group he might be mistakenly labaled as belonging to will someday cause him harm. The approach he is taking is more likely to lead to that result than confronting the evil people attempting to hijack Islam. As such achieve greater power the more likely innocents will be harmed by the response.
Not arguing political points, but for me, personally, when I read the words 'anti-/idiotarian', 'warblogger/warblogging' and 'fisking' on any web site, my eyes glaze over and my attention fades.
Calling someone a 'racist' in this day and age is about as meaningful as calling them a 'witch'.
Thanks Anil, this is a post I have been craving for unknowingly. As for LGF, I think it's a fascinating site for anybody with some curiosity about group behavior. I have long given up posting there as no rational argument will ever make any difference. I'm now only observing to see the whole spin get out of control - as it eventually will - and see the community collapse as it's stridency will turn away even the most hardcore zealots.
What a bunch of douche bags. You people are TOO funny. You're all serious, making comments you think make sense, screaming out racism whenever you get the chance. Lovely. I'm amazed at the high level of intelligence and the incredibly witty remarks you people post. Thanks for the laughs, guys, seriously, I neeed that once in awhile. By the way Anal Dash, my father once said you can't explain to a stupid person that they're stupid. Boy was he right. Laughing at all of you from Canada.
"They hold tightly onto their suspicions of their enemies, even in face of contradictory facts."
Here you're clearly refering to the Arab belief that Mossad was responsible for 9/11, right?